Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.020 (2026)
Judicial districts with more than one judge: Concurrent jurisdiction of judges
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 3.020 Judicial districts with more than one judge: Concurrent
jurisdiction of judges. In
judicial districts where more than one judge has been provided for, the judges
have concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction within the district, under such
rules as may be prescribed by law, and the district judges therein may make
additional rules, not inconsistent with law, which will enable them to transact
judicial business in a convenient and lawful manner.
[2:440:1955]—(NRS A 1981, 1954)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2022 · leading case: City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court, 302 P.3d 1118 (Nev. 2013).
City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court, 302 P.3d 1118 (Nev. 2013). “Next, Section 3.020 of the city charter provides that the city manager must carefully supervise the City's affairs, exercise control over all departments of the City government, attend city council meetings, and recommend adoption of measures and bills to the city council.”
Halverson v. Hardcastle, 163 P.3d 428 (Nev. 2007). “020 also supports this proposition: In judicial districts where more than one judge has been provided for, the judges have concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction within the district, under such rules as may be prescribed by law, and the district judges therein may make…”
Pressler v. City of Reno, 50 P.3d 1096 (Nev. 2002). “12 Reno City Charter § 3.020(5), prior to being amended in 1997, provided that department heads could be removed only for cause.”
Lapinski v. City of Reno, 603 P.2d 1088 (Nev. 1979). “Ill, § 3.020 providing that dismissal be “for cause” mandates a termination hearing.”
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 382 P.2d 214 (Nev. 1963). “It is unnecessary to determine this issue because of the provisions of NRS 3.020 relating to jurisdiction of the district courts.”
Lorton v. Jones, 2014 NV 8 (Nev. 2014). “III, § 3.020(1), and the mayor has no administrative duties.”
Floyd (Zane) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2022). “" NRS 3.020. Thus, Department 17 has as much jurisdiction over the execution of Floyd's death sentence and his postconviction habeas petition(s) as any other department in the district.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.020(1) — 2 cases
City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court, 302 P.3d 1118 (Nev. 2013). “Next, Section 3.020 of the city charter provides that the city manager must carefully supervise the City's affairs, exercise control over all departments of the City government, attend city council meetings, and recommend adoption of measures and bills to the city council.”
Lorton v. Jones, 2014 NV 8 (Nev. 2014). “III, § 3.020(1), and the mayor has no administrative duties.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.020(1)(c) — 1 case
City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court, 302 P.3d 1118 (Nev. 2013). “Next, Section 3.020 of the city charter provides that the city manager must carefully supervise the City's affairs, exercise control over all departments of the City government, attend city council meetings, and recommend adoption of measures and bills to the city council.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 3.020(5) — 1 case
Pressler v. City of Reno, 50 P.3d 1096 (Nev. 2002). “12 Reno City Charter § 3.020(5), prior to being amended in 1997, provided that department heads could be removed only for cause.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.